Christian: Interpretation (priests, Moses, tradition, Epistles, grace)

[writer]

20 What do you think the word "catholic" means? It means "universal" or "unified." That oneness is, indeed, in Christ -- not in the Vatican, not in the Pope, not in the Patriarch, not in the Presiding Bishop.
Christ's oneness is not the oneness of a presiding bishop, Pope, headquarters, Vatican, nor patriarch. Other than the Triune God incarnate 'n resurrected Himself. Iz called: His Body

I can guarantee you that the church you attend is not "the same" as, for example, the one which Priscia attended.
Thanks. Please understand if i don't take your guarantee. I can guarantee it is. Christ has only one Body, one Bride

All manifestations of the modern Church are "deviant" from the early Church, just as the early Church was "deviant" from the worship practices of Jesus.
The NT church was not deviant from Jesus since she is Jesus. "And the two shall be one flesh. This mystery's great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church," Eph 5:31-32; Gen 2:18-24; 1 Cor 6:17.
If by "modern Church" you mean Christianity or Christendom: that isn't the church. Never was. Never will be. It, rather, is something else (Rv 17:1-18; Mt 13:24-43)

What about young women and mothers?
In God's eyes, all His saints are sons. Just as all His church compose His Bride

The revelation and teaching of the apostles is carried on yet today by their rightful successors.
Which's not a matter of formality, institution, nor religion. But rather organic, in spirit, and in His eternal life

Christ didn't found a hierarchy -- that's true. But just because the Body manifests itself with a temporal hierarchy doesn't make the Church fundamentally "wrong."
Religion has its hierarchies and clergy-laity system. The Body of Christ never has, never will. Meaning such things fundamentally are not His Body.
Thanks Sojourner

[writer]

Glo-o-o-o-o-oh-o-o-o-o-oh-o-o-o-o-oh-ria. In excelius De-o

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by writer

20 What do you think the word "catholic" means? It means "universal" or "unified." That oneness is, indeed, in Christ -- not in the Vatican, not in the Pope, not in the Patriarch, not in the Presiding Bishop.
To the contrary: Christ's oneness is not the oneness of a presiding bishop, Pope, headquarters, Vatican, nor patriarch. Other than the Triune God incarnate 'n resurrected Himself. Iz called: His Body

I can guarantee you that the church you attend is not "the same" as, for example, the one which Priscia attended.
Thanks. Please understand if i don't take your guarantee. I can guarantee it is. Christ has only one Body, one Bride

All manifestations of the modern Church are "deviant" from the early Church, just as the early Church was "deviant" from the worship practices of Jesus.
The NT church was not deviant from Jesus since she is Jesus. "And the two shall be one flesh. This mystery's great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church," Eph 5:31-32; Gen 2:18-24; 1 Cor 6:17.
If by "modern Church" you mean Christianity or Christendom: that isn't the church. Never was. Never will be. It, rather, is something else (Rv 17:1-18; Mt 13:24-43)

What about young women and mothers?
In God's eyes, all His saints are sons. Just as all His church compose His Bride

The revelation and teaching of the apostles is carried on yet today by their rightful successors.
Which's not a matter of formality, institution, nor religion. But rather organic, in spirit, and in His eternal life

Christ didn't found a hierarchy -- that's true. But just because the Body manifests itself with a temporal hierarchy doesn't make the Church fundamentally "wrong."
Religion has its hierarchies and clergy-laity system. The Body of Christ never has, never will. Meaning such things fundamentally are not His Body.
Thanks Sojourner

Agreed.

Does your congregation use an organ or a drumset and electric instruments? What about a TV or projector? Does your congregation attend Jewish Synagogue every Sabbath? Does your congregation meet for an agape feast afterward? Does your congregation's worship center around the Eucharist? Does your congregation send deacons out after services to carry communion to the ill and infirm?

I didn't say the Church was deviant from Jesus. I said that the Church has deviated from the worship practices of Jesus.

How can all the saints (which are the members of the Church) be sons (male) and yet a bride (female)? What's wrong with recognizing people for the way God made them -- male and female, as Genesis says?

The organization is for the sake of expediency of teaching -- it is not the content of the teaching.

Actually, the Church has always noted a difference between the apostolic leadership and the laity. Such things always have been, fundamentally, part of the organic nature of the Church.

[writer]

Does your congregation use an organ or a drumset and electric instruments?
Sometimes electric piano, sometimes acoustic guitar, sometimes acoustic piano, sometimes acapella

What about a TV or projector?
Not generally. Sometimes if we watch part of a meeting from somewhere else

Does your congregation attend Jewish Synagogue every Sabbath?
No

Does your congregation meet for an agape feast afterward?
Bout once a month--the whole group

Does your congregation's worship center around the Eucharist?
Every Lord's Day (Sunday) fer sure. Tho we use the term "Lord's Table" or "Lord's Supper."

Does your congregation send deacons out after services to carry communion to the ill and infirm?
If someone requests it, but then neither did that appear to ever happen in the NT

I didn't say the Church was deviant from Jesus. I said that the Church has deviated from the worship practices of Jesus.
Many Christians have, many haven't. The Son lived by His Dad

How can all the saints (which are the members of the Church) be sons (male) and yet a bride (female)?
Cuz the Bible says so

What's wrong with recognizing people for the way God made them -- male and female, as Genesis says?
Nothing. Jus as there's nothing wrong with callin Christ's Bride Christ's Bride, dearest S

The organization is for the sake of expediency of teaching -- it is not the content of the teaching.
To the contrary, dear Sojourner: Teaching clergy-laity (Nico-laitanism), or hierarchy, or that only certain priests can break the bread and serve the wine: is contrary to the apostles' teachin 'n pattern

Actually, the Church has always noted a difference between the apostolic leadership and the laity.
To the contrary: they're equal members in the New Man. And they're not clergy-laity. That was an early deviation (cf Rv 2)

Such things always have been, fundamentally, part of the organic nature of the Church.
Clergy-laity has never, and never fundamentally, been part of Christ's Body. Rather it is a corruption, leaven, natural teaching of man, and contrary to the Body's organic nature and her Head.
Thanks

[angellous_evangellous]

Being colorblind really is a disability on this thread.

[sojourner]

The argument here seems to have degenerated into a "who's the true Church vs. who's not the truth Church."

Baerly played the trump card by saying that he attends the true Church (implying that catholics are not the true Church). Writer then adds his voice in like manner. This is a particularly frustrating point of view that runs rampant through (and, indeed, is a fundamental building-block of the formation of) restorationist thought. The restorationist rationale assumes the following:

1) The Church desperately needs restoration
2) It is possible to restore the Church to New Testament doctrine and practice
3) The "not-restored" Church is inherently flawed and, therefore, not the "real" Church.
4) The church "I" attend has achieved #'s 1 and 2, and therefore is not flawed, like the #3 Church.

These assumptions are what lead restorationists to dismiss certain aspects of the Church, like the apostolic succession, tradition, certain rituals, the organic nature of the Church, authority, ongoing revelation, organization (the Mormons are notable exceptions to these last three).

These assumptions are based on the fallacy that everything pertaining to the Church must be Biblical (based upon a [usually] conservative, narrow and literalistic interpretation of the Bible) -- sola scriptura.
They are convinced that the traditional Church is flawed and needs correction -- and that the correct way to go about this is to "just get back to the Bible."

The catholic tradition says, "Fine. You want to come away from the rest of us, that's your business, but we're sticking to Church the way it's been handed down to us."

Both factions end up claiming that they're not the ones who "split" and that they, therefore, are the "true" Church.

Absurd. And sad for those who seek the unity of Christ's Church.

[writer]

26 The Church desperately needs restoration
That's what Revelation 2-3 indicate

It is possible to restore the Church to New Testament doctrine and practice
If it weren't, 2-3, especially 3:7-13, woundn't've been written. With God, all things are possible

The "not-restored" Church is inherently flawed and, therefore, not the "real" Church.
That's for sure. The Lord created not the divisions of a state-church, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism denominations, any denominations, Anglicanism, Anglicanism, nor ecumenisms

The church "I" attend has achieved #'s 1 and 2, and therefore is not flawed, like the #3 Church.
Whether it has, or's in the process of, the Lord can, and will, judge; as can His Body

These assumptions are what lead restorationists to dismiss certain aspects of the Church, like the apostolic succession, tradition, certain rituals, the organic nature of the Church, authority, ongoing revelation, organization (the Mormons are notable exceptions to these last three).
Mormonism is polytheistic and isn't even Christian.
There is no such thing either in the universe or in His Scriptures as a formal apostolic succession. To claim, like Mormons, Popes, or "Patriarchs," either that there is a formal, institutional, office of apostle to inherit; or that one has succeeded into it; is in itself a deviation from the apostles' teaching in the New Testament.
The NT church's bona fide tradition is both the apostles' Scriptural teaching, and all her saints' for the past 2 millenia experience of Christ and which comports with that teaching.
Christ's Body's only bona fide rituals are her Table in genuine oneness and baptism and anointing sick with oil at times.
The organic nature of the church is her life, who is Christ the Lord Himself (Col 3:4).
Her authority is her Head, who is Christ her Lord Himself (Eph 4:15).
Her ongoing revelation is Christ, the light of the world Himself (Jn 8:12; Eph 1:17-21).
Her organization is Christ the Lord Himself, who is not an organization, but an organism, a Vine, who is the embodiment of the processed triune God who became a life-giving Spirit in resurrection to make an abode with all who believe into Him (Jn 14:1-3, 23; 17:20-23; 1 Cor 12:12-13; etc)

These assumptions are based on the fallacy that everything pertaining to the Church must be Biblical (based upon a [usually] conservative, narrow and literalistic interpretation of the Bible) -- sola scriptura.
His church, which is His Body, like His word, is leavenless. Pure, unadulterated Him. His narrowness (cf Jn 14:6; Mt 7:14; 2 Tim 3:14-17) is only the breadth, length, height, and depth of the triune God Himself.
As Adam said, "This time this's bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken," Gen 2:23; cf Eph 5:30-32

They are convinced that the traditional Church is flawed and needs correction -- and that the correct way to go about this is to "just get back to the Bible."
"But you, continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from which ones you've learned them and that from a babe you have known the sacred writings, which're able to make one wise unto salvation through the faith which's in Christ Jesus. All Scripture's God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work," 2 Tim 3:14-17.
"...which in other generations wasn't made known to the sons of men, as it's now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in spirit, that..." Eph 3:5

sad for those who seek the unity of Christ's Church.
One Body and one Spirit, even as also you were called in one hope of your calling...Eph 4:4

[athanasius]

Writer said:

“But you, continue in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing from which ones you've learned them and that from a babe you have known the sacred writings, which're able to make one wise unto salvation through the faith which's in Christ Jesus. All Scripture's God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work," 2 Tim 3:14-17.
"...which in other generations wasn't made known to the sons of men, as it's now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in spirit, that..." Eph 3:5

My answer:

Ok, case in point. I agree with 2 Tim 3:14-17 but I do not see how this passage of scripture shows us that the Scriptures are Solely sufficient. It nowhere says that the scriptures are solely sufficient(Sola Scriptura) or that only the sacred scriptures are the only things given and to be used as a authority for a christian. Could you show me how this passage teaches sole sufficiency?

Eph 3 which you quote proves the Catholic understanding of the natural development of Christian Doctrine but has nothing to do with sola scriptura.
Again I make the point that Scripture alone could not be sole sufficient because Scripture itself couldn’t give us the new testament canon.

We needed a infallible outside sources for that. Perhaps you haven't seen my other post so I will paste it here:

If we as Christians are going to believe in a infallible new testament canon then we need a infallible outside source to tell us what that canon is because scripture does not contain a divine table of contents that list all the books in the new testament canon. Even if there was a book in the bible that did list all the other books that belong to the bible we would have no way of knowing if that book itself was scripture without a outside source.

In other words just because a book may claim itself to be inspired doesn’t mean it is. The book of Mormon claims it is inspired as well as the Koran but we do not believe that those books are. We also cannot just say that we know the new testament is scripture because God internally spoke to our hearts and told us because mormons would say the same thing about their holy book but we know they are wrong.

And the early church proves that we cannot just know what the canon of the new testament is by our own feelings because the early Church considered many books scripture that we do not today, book s like the Apocalypse of Peter or the Shepherd of Hermas or the Epistle of Clement yet no one believes these are scripture today.

We need a Authoritative outside source to be able to look at the traditions of the canon and weed them out and infallibly proclaim the canon that is of God. We need the church that Jesus founded and gave Authority to speak infallibly for him (Matt 16:13-19, 18:18, Luke 10:16, Acts 15:28). We need the church that historically the Holy Spirit would guide into all truth(Jn 16:13-14).

The Church that down through history has had councils(Such as Nicea) and made authoritative decisions led by the Holy Spirit on important doctrine. There is only One Church that Jesus founded historically and history is quite clear that it was the Catholic Church as attested to by both Protestant and Catholics Scholars. Peter being the fist Pope all the way down to our current Holy Father Benedict 16th. See the historical list here: See my Post # 49 http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...t=23977&page=5

It was this Catholic church historically that would be the one Jesus promised he would lead into all truth(Jn 16:13-14) and promised the gates of death wouldn’t prevail against it(Matt 16:18-19). It was this Catholic church historically that God used to identify and infallibly proclaim the correct tradition of the New testament canon which we all adhere to.

This was done in the year 382 A.D. at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus I and ratified again at other councils in Hippo(393) Carthage(397) and florence(1438). Up until Rome in 382 there had not been a authoritative declared new testament canon and many canons that were believed to be scripture had books in them that were not. This is the Catholics power point if you will. Mr writer does not seem to get this.

God historically gave us the Catholic Church as my list shows. God also gave us the Canon. God worked through his Catholic Church, and her Popes and Councils to proclaim to us what the Canon of the new testament would be. In others words the only reason why protestants believe the books that they have in their new testament are scripture is because they follow the historical infallible proclamations of the Catholic church and her Popes and councils .

They(Protestants) when they try to quote scripture apart from the teaching of the Catholic church are picking fruit from a tree they didn’t plant so to speak. The irony is that the very scripture Writer and other protestants quote to argue against the authority of the Catholic Church and her traditions clearly was given to them by the very-Catholic church and her Apostolic traditions in 382 Ad that he argues against .

In other words the only reason why they(protestants) can quote you the new testament and even know what books make up the new testament is because the Catholic church and her traditions decided in the 4th century what made up the canon and what didn’t.

Mr writer wrongly thinks that the catholic church teaches that it created the canon. We teach that God created the Canon. But we also teach that God created the church and used the Catholic church and her traditions and Popes and councils to discover and proclaim to the people what the real Canon tradition was. Thus by relying the authority of the Catholic church and her Popes and councils and traditions to get the bible, the protestant nullifies his whole position of sola scritura.

This is the nail in the coffin for the protestant on the false doctrine of sola scriptura. Once this doctrine(sola scriptura) crumbles so the rest of the theology of the protestants crumbles too. They need the apostolic traditions and the Pope and the magisterium and we welcome them home back to Jesus Catholic church and pray for them.

To read a complete refutation of writers false claim on this subject point by point please see my post # 246 at this link
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...=16456&page=25

I would recommend a Historical work on the canon of the bible. This book is indispensable for studying the canon it is called

“Where we Got the Bible, our debt to the Catholic church” by the Henry Graham. This book was written by a protestant(presbyertian minister) who studied the new testament canon issue and eventually led him to convert to catholicism.

The Tradition of the new testament Canon is one example of a tradition that is not found in the pages of the new testament itself and is part of the traditions that we are to hold fast to that are not written down in scripture(2 Thess 2:15)

I hope this helps everybody.

God bless all
In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasius

[Baerly]

Originally Posted by sojourner

It's a matter of viewpoint only. There is only one Church for us to belong to. The Bible says as much. The Roman Catholics also claim to have begun at Pentecost, as well as the Orthodox. Frankly, history and documentation are on their side.

Can you find the Roman Catholic Church in the New Testament? I have been studying the bible awhile and I have not seen one hint of the Catholic Church,or any other denominational church. However I can find the church of Christ (Romans 16:16). I can even find the way they (and we) worship today. I can also find where prophecies determined the way,place and mode which the church would begin. These are all important to prove one is a part of the church of the bible.These are the foundations one MUST have or they have none at all (1Cor.3:11). It is a matter of speaking as the oracles of God, or not (1Peter 4:11).

in love Baerly

[Baerly]

Originally Posted by writer

history and documentation (such as the NT) indicate that Roman Catholicism isn't that church

Which is that one church?